Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Richard says, "First, the idea that I am not in a position to make a claim about fluoridated water discharges and the salmon collapse in the Sacramento River because I did not report possible stormwater dilution of wastewater data is laughable."

Response: I never said you weren't in any position to be able to do anything. I said you did not present evidence of your claims . . and you didn't.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Ok, Richard, I had asked who Graham and Morin are, and you provided a link which answered that question. (But before we look at that, you had said, "I should say go find it yourself, but to help readers, here it is:"

Response: You are making an extraordinary claim here. It is your responsibility to provide evidence of it. It is not my responsibility to simply believe you or to look up evidence of your claims myself. This is what documentation is all about. Based on some previous comments you have made, you don't seem to understand this.

John Remington Graham: * B.A., LL.B., of the Minnesota Bar. Federal Public Defender, 1969-1973; Co-Founder, Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Lecturer, Hamline University School of Law, 1972-1980; Special Counsel for the City of Brainerd, 1974-1980; Crow Wing County Public Defender, 1981-1984; Crow Wing County Attorney, 1991-l995; Advisor on British constitutional law and history to the Amicus Curiae for Quebec in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1997-1998. Mr. Graham has served as counsel in major fluoridation litigation in Minnesota, Washington State, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas, 1974-1984

Pierre-Jean Morin: Ph.D. in Experimental Medicine. Chief Profusionist, Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, 1957-1967; Coordinator for Research in the Heart Institute and Artificial Organs Group, and Lecturer in Medicine, Laval University, 1967-1979; Director of Medical Research, Laval University Hospital, 1973-1979; Senior Scientific Advisor to the Environment Minister and the Prime Minister of Quebec, 1976-l985; Director, Local Community Services Center, Lotbiniere West, 1979-1990. Dr. Morin was scientific advisor to counsel for the plaintiffs in major fluoridation litigation in Texas in l982.

So Graham and Morin are an attorney and a doctor.

You had said, "The Safe Drinking Water Act intent, its purpose, was to halt the spread of water fluoridation (as described by Graham and Morin in their fluoridation litigation detailed monograph)."

You also directed my attention to footnote # 88.

In the book you cite, the authors are discussing a case that had reached the Canadian Supreme Court, "Toronto v Forrest Hill." The authors quote Justice Rand. And then we see footnote #88:

"88. Id. at 118. The same distinction appears in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(11), which states, “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventative health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” This provision was intended by Congress to prohibit the use of the Safe Drinking Water Act as a means of imposing artificial fluoridation of public water supplies throughout the United States."

Is all of this correct thus far?

Now let's look at what you said again: "The Safe Drinking Water Act intent, its purpose, was to halt the spread of water fluoridation (as described by Graham and Morin in their fluoridation litigation detailed monograph)."

Really, Richard? Do I really need to go through these two statements to prove they are not congruent? Aside from the fact that your comments are based upon a book by a lawyer and a doctor, nowhere does anybody say - based on this one statute - that the intent and purpose of the SDWA was to stop CWF.

But let's look at the provision itself: "“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventative health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”

The authors are correct. This provision simply prevents a federal mandate. "No national primary drinking water regulation," i.e., nothing from the Federal SDWA, "may require the addition of any substance," i.e., may demand, may force the addition of any substance, "for preventative health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” This is self explanatory.

Richard, the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act was not written with the purpose of halting water fluoridation. The authors of the book you cited, a doctor and a lawyer, never said that. The Safe Drinking Water Act doesn't say that. It simply says that the SDWA can't impose anything like CWF on anyone, the SDWA can't require it. And the SDWA wasn't written for that purpose.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

First, the idea that I am not in a position to make a claim about fluoridated water discharges and the salmon collapse in the Sacramento River because I did not report possible stormwater dilution of wastewater data is laughable. The major contributor to the collapse was the severe drought at the time which concentrates fluoride levels in the River at the discharge tube. There had been no rain for months to dilute it.

Second, if one works for an organization which has members that interacted with others who make errors does not make that person an alternativce health pimp, so the mischaracterization of Dr.Osmunsen is ridiculous.

Finally, I did not send the links to solicit responses. I sent them to help educate the readers and to stop ludicrous responses/attacks by those who don't understand the topic, such as those who side with CDC dental officials, the ADA, the National Sanitation Foundation, the AFS, and many un-informed others.

(And if someone had millions to blow on fluoride litigation against un-informed others, I would recommend instead giving it to those who have been harmed by fluoride ingestion).

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Richard, you say, "Why do I have to respond to anyone who calls me an "alternative heath pimp"?"

Response: Actually that comment was directed toward billo. He was the former director of the Fluoride Action Network which unashamedly has taken money from the unethical alternative health - multi million dollar alternative health company, Mercola. Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales practices. Mercola also happens to sell a lot of very expensive merchandise, which sells better when people are afraid of their drinking water and afraid of fluoride.

I hope that clears things up.

I will look at your links and comment on them tomorrow. Thank you for providing them.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

And I am now accused of not filing litigation against fluoridation in a denigrating manner since I supposedly have access to millions of dollars to pay for it say from Mercola. Wow. Ive never met or ever corresponded with mercola. How twisted can a fluoride promoter get?

And besides, I dont believe in filing lawsuits. I learned that from my parents , that you discuss your differences until they are resolved. I dont object to thode who are in a position to file righteous lawsuits but I dont have such internal ability. So what? And you really think someone would pay me millions to sue the CDC? Please spare us.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Dr. Osmensen is making the points that dental fluorosis is a major National problem because water fluoridation is so widesped, and that fluorotic teeth, with deficient enamel, is often accompanied by stains from other materials because the enamel does not protect the underlying dentin normally, all due to fluoride consumption. The idea that fluoridated wter is not the major cause of dental and bone fluorosis is absurd..

The fluoride sources for dental fluorosis were reviewed in a paper where it was concluded that the use of fluoridated water under age 6 should be more carefully considered.

Again, fluoridated water does not decrease dental caries (which most dentists who publish materials on fluorosis do not grasp). Fluoridated water does not work, either topically (Yiamouyiannis, etc. or systemically, U.S.CDC). Poisoning children with this garbage is a mistake.

Dentists & water workers have high occupational exposure to fluoride which contributes to workers' comp claims and higher rates of various disease among dentists, who in some respects echo the circumstances of 19th century 'hatters' who were known as 'mad' because of their exposure to mercury, a substance that is still common in American dentistry although restricted or banned in Europe and elsewhere, much like water fluoridation.

Studies published in recent weeks on fluoride and dementia aren't the first of this type, but they certainly count among the best.

It may be too late for some folks with fluoride damaged brains, but shouldn't AARP which claims to advocate for all senior citizens make a statement similar to this month's condemnation of fluoridation by the Children's Health Team?

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE: Describes impact of fluoride-induced stress and inflammation in the development of Alzheimer’s disease and demonstrates the mechanism for cell death in the progressive worsening of the disease over time.https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/12/3965

DEMENTIA: Describes the chemical mechanism by which the effectiveness of the two most popular drugs used to treat Alzheimer’s & other neurodegenerative dementia disease is reduced or blocked by fluoride induced oxidative stress.https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/1/10/htm

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Hogwash. One person's "anecdotal observation" is another person's abject eyewitness certainty. Anecdotal is relative. Anecdotal is for example articles published by fluoridation promoters who claim dental benefit when the error bars overlap between treated and controls, or when diet and brushing habits are not controlled. That may be abject truth to someone, but it is nevertheless anecdotal to a scientist. I visited the child myself and it is not anecdotal. Dental fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. Sorry.